The 2 party system is horseshit, but this is your recurring reminder that the greens are not worth your vote.
Any party serious about affecting change does so at the local level first. The fact that the greens consistently try to get attention with symbolic candidacies at the national level while being fuck all out of touch with school boards and local politics paints them as diva opportunists at best and bad faith progressive spoilers at worst.
This is coming from someone who agrees with most of West's platform at face value
You know who was involved with the Green Party back in the early 2000s? Kyrsten Sinema.
Running for president as a 3rd party is like proposing marriage to random strangers instead of, y’know, dating people. We all know you’re doing it for attention because it’s not going to work.
except when it has worked...
Even Teddy Roosevelt didn't get it to work.
Which is... never. At least for presidential elections. I can't speak for the marriage proposals.
The Republican party didn't appear out of nowhere in 1860 to win a presidential race. They were formed in 1854 and supplanted the Whig party entirely before the 1860 election. It was a majority party throughout the north before it won a presidential race — it wasn't a "third party."
Likewise, Democrats replaced the Democratic-Republican party in much the same way that republicans replaced the Whig party, and had been a major party from its very beginnings. Literally in their first election there were only two parties running!
There are only three other parties that have won the presidency: Federalists (there from the inception of the party system), Democratic-Republicans (ditto), and Whigs (major party years before first electoral win). There's been no "third party" that has ever won the US presidency. All three have the same story as democrats as starting off in an election with just two parties.
I'm a green party supporter (not in the US) and couldn't agree more. I support the greens as much as I can to help spread environmental awareness, but if the election looks like it will be close, I vote for the party most likely to defeat the conservatives.
what if all the parties except greens are conservative?
They aren't. And it's disingenuous to assert otherwise.
They're neo-libs which is better because the conservatives are fascists.
But they're both evil. Just a matter of degree. Hence us voting for the lesser of the two.
Exactly, I don't enjoy voting that way but do so out of necessity.
Neoliberals aren't evil - we're just correct.
The type of response I would expect from the GOP tbh
That's because your life is informed more from social media than real life.
We're the normal people.
voting for evil is bad
edit:
people downviting me prefer to vote for evil
It's not great but we have to be pragmatic unfortunately.
And it's pretty shitty honestly that what the neo-libs have going for them is at least we're not fascists.
Need a strong third party and ranked choice voting.
What we actually have going for us is the largest period of sustained peace and prosperity in all of human history.
Sustained peace? You're joking right?
Also, prosperity for who?
You know most life on this planet is going to have a very hard time the next ten years.
Neo-libs pretend to be the left to get the working class to forget classism. But they're at best centrists who are more concerned about keeping the 'peace' (Obama drone strikes I'm looking at you) so the corporate power brokers can continue to 'prosper'.
But, at least you're not a fascist.
Prosperity for literally everyone. Graph go up mean world more gooder.
So I just realized you replied to my comment twice.
Considering this post and your other ones it's obvious you don't have anything real to say.
Take care.
I 100% mean the above.
name one that isn't
Do you know the first thing about the Democratic platform? It's not perfect - and they're not perfect - but I have a trans kid, and they're the ones who want him to have rights and be treated like a human being. They're also the ones who want to raise taxes on the rich to fund social services. They're also the ones who accept the demonstrable reality of climate change. They're also the ones who resist efforts to put religion into schools and government.
Are they as left as I wish they were? Nope. But they're not conservative, either, at least not most of them.
I guarantee they will not accomplish anything: they want to hold it over you to score votes in perpetuity. they will also continue to take corporate dollars and water down legislation that does pass so it greases the palms of their donors.
Your guarantee is worthless and idiotic. The fact that they're not perfect doesn't mean they aren't 10,000% better in every way than Republicans. Enough of this bullshit "both sides" narrative. I'll stick to the side that isn't trying to take my son's rights away.
the didn't codify roe v Wade. they passed tarp and the patriot act. they fund police and prisons and war. they passed Obama are as a gift to insurance industries. they didn't jail bp executives for deepwater horizon and even paid oil companies for Correxit.
democrats are not your friend: they are the "good cop".
That's all true, but none of that means anything to a trans person who wants to not get their rights taken away, though.
democrat promises mean just as much
they passed [Obamacare] as a gift to insurance agencies
The original single-payer Obamacare failed by one vote so if there were more Democrats elected we would have single-payer health care.
Your weird fantasy doesn't align with reality and this is true at all levels
calling my fact-based position a "weird fantasy" is jus innuendo, not a refutation
Eh, the reform party nearly got it. It can be easier to get local elections after achieving national legitimacy.
They made no inroads after Hilary vs Trump. They aren't going to see any better opportunity for national legitimacy, and it wasn't enough to make a significant difference. If they want to succeed, they have to start local.
The Reform party had national legitimacy in the 90s, but not much because they didn't win the presidential elections. Then they dissolved.
They need to play the long game. Even if by some miracle they won the presidency, they would have no senators or house representatives. Democrats and Republicans would likely not cooperate. It would be ironic. Greens aren't willing to form a coalition with Democrats despite having so many commonalities, but they'd need to convince Democrats to do so with them if they didn't want to instantly be a lame duck president.
What you do is veto and pass executive orders to show your dissatisfaction with current congress and hope this gets you enough publicity to win seats in midterms.
When has that ever worked? Republicans cannot be shamed into doing the right thing. We have seen this consistently time and time again. You could probably make some inroads with Democrats though.
Nonetheless, that shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be taking the presidency, the Senate, and the House. At the very least, if you're capable of winning the presidency, your party should be able to take a good number of seats in Congress if you have people running. Maximizing that number will make the presidency more successful, and that will require people running for those positions in every state, and most importantly, the support of the third party in cultivating those candidates.
What? I never said shaming into doing the right thing, I said advocating an ideology and hoping others follow it
Again, you might get some Democrats, but you aren't going to get any Republicans. I edited my comment after you posted this I believe, but the general idea of what I'm saying is that you need as many seats in Congress as possible to have a smooth and successful presidency. The goal should not be compromise with Democrats from the outset. It should be having the presidency, House, and Senate.
That requires the party to seriously invest in other races.
Republican voters have jumped to the Libertarian party before, same with Reform party. Generally all the bigger third parties have actually spawned from previously Republican voters.
Tell that to the Tea Party, the last significant change in voting dynamics we've had as a nation, that won almost entirely at the local level and got fucking destroyed on the national stage.
The Tea Party is what eventually led to the populist surge that backed Trump.
The Tea party movement (which was within the Republican party) was born out of the Reform party and their national fame.
The Tea Party was born from us electing a black guy who wanted to pass universal health care.
Partially about ACA but also about the forever wars.
Lol no.
However, Republicans are divided: 48% approve of Obama’s decision to withdraw all combat forces by the end of 2011 while 47% disapprove. Tea Party Republicans are much less supportive of Obama’s decision than are non-Tea Party Republicans. Just 42% of Republicans and Republican-leaning
Lemmy isn't as great about server uptime as I'd like. I frequently have to edit links back in to make things show up
:(
IMO still better to vote 3rd party than to waste your vote with the blues and reds.
We need to start showing them that we are not shee, just keep voting for them with no changes; Reagan/BushSr/Clinton/BushJr/Obama/Trump/Biden all they did was for the wealthy class not for the working class, do not get me wrong they do throw in crumbs here and there...
Biden admin: passes $1 trillion infrastructure bill, $400 billion in climate funding, $1.9 trillion in COVID aid that temporarily boosted unemployment aid and child tax credit, and first major gun safety legislation in decades, seen here
Demand change. Demand more from the politicians that work for you. Take Biden and all elected officials to account for expiring temporary relief for the lower class. But on many important issues for the lower class there are big differences between red and blue.
Thank you. I get so frustrated with people who say the two parties are the same. They are not, and all you have to do is compare the policy achievements of the Trump and Biden administrations. There are real consequences to choosing Dem over GOP.
Demand change
That's cute, the working class has zero impact on policy
Then how come the Biden administration has been the most progressive in decades when it comes to policy and signing bills?
Because he hasnt, being told hes progressive doesnt make it truth.
No, but passing the most comprehensive green energy bill in history certainly does.
Which means nothing when he's expanded the budget of the worlds largest polluter to almost $1t. And issuing oil leases faster than Obama did, which includes areas in protected wet lands and most of the Gulf of Mexico. The liberal SCOTUS ruled with the conservative ones to kill the Clean Water Act
Most people are not impressed, he's too old and out of touch with the people
That poll isn't even from this year.
You don't get it, we don't care for the crumbs.
They don't matter to us, only to you who still vote team blue no matter what.
The real problems will only be addressed when we all band together against the wealthy class, so we need to stop playing their games.
Sure, while you're building your revolution, don't betray your country to the actual freakin' fascists. The Republicans are not the party of big business anymore — that's the Democrats, who have done great things for the capitalist economy. Today's Republicans are the party of hate groups, Nazi street gangs, child abusers, rapists, thieves, and traitors.
I agree with you to an extent, but I also sympathize with the person above. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said this, but if each president after WW2 were brought before the Nuremberg Court, they'd be hanged for war crimes. I think when he said this he stopped at HW Bush, but Id be willing to bet it's true up to now.
This doesn't mean all sides are the same. I'm still going to vote Democrat in a general election, for the most part. But at the end of the day, they still push a globalist free-market ideology, they still promote war, and they still condone the surveillance of the American people, the imprisonment of dissidents and political threats, and the destruction of the environment in the name of profit.
Fascism is already here. It's the corporations (the rich) who hold power, and both neoliberals and conservatives work to uphold that dynamic so they themselves can maintain power.
I agree with you to an extent, but I also sympathize with the person above. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said this, but if each president after WW2 were brought before the Nuremberg Court, they'd be hanged for war crimes. I think when he said this he stopped at HW Bush, but Id be willing to bet it's true up to now.
This doesn't mean all sides are the same. I'm still going to vote Democrat in a general election, for the most part. But at the end of the day, they still push a globalist free-market ideology, they still promote war, and they still condone the surveillance of the American people, the imprisonment of dissidents and political threats, and the destruction of the environment in the name of profit.
Fascism is already here. It's the corporations (the rich) who hold power, and both neoliberals and conservatives work to uphold that dynamic so they themselves can maintain power.
Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics because it's the only thing he's good at.
People to the left of Biden sitting the election out/voting 3rd party will have one practical outcome: helping to elect Trump, who is about to go on trial for trying to overthrow the government.
I would love to live in an America where Biden is the rightmost option instead of the leftmost. That’s not where we are, and if we want to get there we can’t let fascists near the levers of power.
the only people who help elect trump are people who vote for trump
You might not “care for the crumbs,” but with your attitude, that’s all you’re destined to get.
Crumbs are for peasants.
we're gonna bang together against normal people
You'll get less than 10% of the vote.
They are happy with their chains, they gotten so used to them they take comfort in their presence.
They settle for crumbs when they have the power to take the whole damn loaf
We need ranked choice voting first. Funny how it's something both Democrats and Republicans can unite over why it's bad, confusing, whatever...
Eh I think it’s more complicated than that. Neither national party is calling for it definitely. And DC Dems are suing to block it in the city. But if you look at where RCV is implemented it’s basically very Democratic cities and independent-streak states like Maine and Alaska. Both of which do have a lot of pressure from viable independent/dem-soc alternatives. It’s also completely banned in Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. So I would tip the scales slightly towards Democrats here, but I agree it primarily challenges those in power so if you’ve been elected under the current system you’re usually not crazy about it regardless of party. (To be clear I totally support RCV or really anything other that FPtP voting)
Some democrats don't like RCV (see the DC thread from the other day), but many do. NYC has RCV, and I assure you it didn't get there without democrats supporting it. So does Maine.
RCV wouldn't work well for presidential elections as they are anyway, because it's a two-stage election. What would RCV mean in an individual state? Pretend a 3rd party is in contention in that state but has no chance nationally. Candidates A and B are the major parties, and C is our third party. If the results are C=40, A=35, B=25, and B's support transfers to C, and C's support would transfer to C, does that mean B should be eliminated so C can win the state, or should C be eliminated (because they won't win any other states) and B should win the state? There's no obvious answer and it just invites more of a clusterfuck.
RCV is great for popular vote elections, which is what everything else is (mostly... there's... I think it's Mississippi governor?) and what the presidential election should be.
Popular vote first, RCV second.
B got the least votes in the first round, so B is dropped. I don't see what the problem, here, is
The problem is that it depends on how you assess it. There are two, both perfectly valid, ways to look at this.
The way you're looking at it is you see it as a state-only contest. B got the fewest votes, B's votes go to C, C wins the state. The end. From an administrative level this is the simplest approach. I don't feel any need to expand on this assessment as you're in favor of it and seem to grok the principles behind it.
The other, equally correct, way to look at it is to assess this as a national contest. In that case, C is the one that actually gets the fewest votes because they have 0 electoral votes in any other state. C is incapable of winning, so C would be eliminated in the first round of the state level contest. After all, one of the points of RCV is to eliminate the impact of spoiler candidates that cannot win. With that in mind, it'd be dumb to design an RCV system that increases the impact of a spoiler candidate that cannot win.
The issue with the first interpretation is the risk of magnifying the impact of a spoiler candidate who cannot win. The issue with the second interpretation is the sheer administrative difficulty (if C were competitive in multiple states then each state needs to take into account how other states are doing their RCV process, etc.). Both flaws would be unlikely to matter >99% of the time, but that one time the flaw would matter could lead to a constitutional crisis or less dangerously result in fundamental dislike of RCV systems. That one time might also become more likely if voters feel more comfortable voting for third parties due to this system.
The problem here is that both systems are fair, logical, and valid; they also each present major issues in edge scenarios. That's why it's important to go for a popular vote first. That way the election is one election, which RCV is explicitly designed for. The current two layer 51-elections that lead to another election that we have for the US presidency is basically a nightmare scenario for an effective RCV system.
It IS a state-by-state contest. The electoral votes each state decides to give are decided completely at a state level, and it should be at a state level. Each state has different priorities, different laws, different populations, and are all differently affected by the result of the presidential election, so just because they voted for C doesn't mean each individual state wouldn't have a preference for A over B given a different choice at a state level.
As an example, Kansas may put C as first choice and B as second choice due to their state-specific priorities. Florida may put C as first choice and A as a second choice for whatever their reason may be.
If B gets thrown out in the end, then each state needs to resolve their votes differently to reflect their differences in priorities. It's the most fair.
It is and it isn't, the reasons are in my comment.
The presidential election is decided entirely by electoral votes, and once those are cast then that's that. You cannot just change it to ranked choice unless you change the constitution itself
However, states are free to decide how they want to allot their electoral votes. Considering it is a state-by-state contest by nature, only that interpretation is even feasible. Technically you could do it if every state decided on the same system of RCV, but I highly doubt you could get every state to effectively make it a popular vote decision, considering most states already don't like that idea.
You do not understand what I am saying.
This is not a first we need to do this... first we need to do that....
We need to stop voting for the bloods and crips.
Looking at the long term, this will help us win the war on the wealthy class.
I’ve noticed an increase in “bOtH sIdEs!11!!!” bullshit on Lemmy lately, along with your usual cadre of dumbfucks who will be manipulated into tacitly supporting the republican traitor filth. And I’m betting it’ll steadily tick upward.
You think Cornell West is a Republican?
He's a spolier candidate that is openly backed by interest groups on the right. He isn't personally a Republican, or ideologically conservative, but he sure has some strange friendships.
Spoiler candidate when not voting for one of thr two preferred oligarchs is kind of a degrading term. Perot didn't spoil the Bush campaign- and the Libertarian party, that gets more votes than the Green, draws mostly from "would-be Republicans"
Perot didn't spoil the Bush campaign
Lol yes he did. While votes for him came from both parties, the damage came from him pounding Bush on "No New Taxes," which did cost Bush substantial numbers of voters - voters who often switched to supporting Clinton.
A 1999 study in the American Journal of Political Science estimated that Perot's candidacy hurt the Clinton campaign, reducing "Clinton's margin of victory over Bush by seven percentage points."[117] In 2016, FiveThirtyEight described the speculation that Perot was a spoiler as "unlikely"
And yet what everyone remembers is "No New Taxes" which is why an incumbent should never be in a debate
to be clear, you proved yourself wrong and are still insisting you were right by shifting the goalposts.
Not remotely, as my quote clearly indicates
anyone can read the context of this thread and see you are lying now
The Bush campaign put forward a worse candidate and lost. It was a more competitive and better election cycle.
Bush was an incumbent President lol
So was Carter, and Ford, and Trump
Well, in all fairness, literally no one voted for Ford.
You're talking like I'm not actually a fan of Biden. I am. The problem with West is his ticket is literally being paid for by the right. So yes, in this case, he is very much a spoiler candidate.
No I'm criticizing calling people who vote for the candidate they support a "spoiler"
the irony of you choosing "ender wiggin" as a moniker. i just hope you wake up before you pull the trigger on a genocide.
Shhhh, you have to buy into the if you don't vote the way I vote your the problem narrative both sides live off of.
Splitting the vote is liberal myth, we wouldn't vote for your shitty candidates if they were the only ones running
And this is why everyone thinks you’re all idiots.
Never gave a fuck what the echo chambers thought, they sacrifice their conviction for 'winning'
Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.
Versus refusing to compromise, and not supporting a candidate unless they pass your purity tests and you call in love with them.
Which strikes you as the more mature, adult option?
Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.
This is what progressives don't seem to understand, which is why they never get anything done and will never win.
Yeah :/. It bothers me because the lack of coalition building and antagonism turns away natural allies -- I thought I was a neo liberal shill until I glanced at a progressive platform and realized I supported everything on there, at least in concept if not implementation.
I think today's progressive wing is a lot better and more pragmatic, although that earns the ire of purists who think that compromise is a dirty word. I've generally found those purists however to be an incredibly loud minority, and far more focused on tribalism than policy.
If 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck is 'goals achieved' then hes doing good.
If 750k living on the streets is 'goals achieved' hes doing good.
If 3 people having more wealth than the entire combined populations of the top 11 states is 'goals achieved' then hes doing good.
If 62% of bankruptcies are due to lack of affordable healthcare is 'goals achieved' then hes going good.
If 42m people, more that the entire population of California, need SNAP to barely survive is 'goals achieved' then hes doing good.
So far he's kept Trumps tax cuts for the rich in place. = Goals achieved.
He's kept Trump's immigrations policies in place. = Goals achieved.
He adopted Trump's 'stop COVID testing and the numbers will go down' approach to COVID = Goals achieved.
The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal. = Goals achieved.
Drilling in protected areas that liberals were outraged when Trump proposed them = Goals achieved.
Leasing off most of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling despite further damaging the climate = Goals achieved.
His achievements are off the fucking charts.
The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal
This is a perfect point to discuss. At no point in the last several decades have Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate that were pro choice, nor 50 votes to remove the filibuster. One of those are needed to enshrine abortion rights in law. The closest Democrats came was in 2008 with Obama, where they had 60 Senate votes for only a couple months because of contested races for Franken and Ted Kennedy's death. They used that window to pass Obamacare, which was the most progressive bill for healthcare possible at the time. There would've been a single payer option, except they needed Lieberman's vote to pass it, and he refused single payer. At this point in time there were a lot more Manchin types in the party too. They all lost their seats in 2010 when the Tea Party dominated and Democrat voters stayed home. You've been around long enough that you should know all of this.
2016 was a critical election for abortion rights because of the supreme court, but many professed abortion supporters didn't seem to understand that, nor that Roe being overturned is a direct consequence of that. Many people recognized the risk and warned them, but they said "don't threaten me with the supreme court!". I sincerely question how many of them actually care about abortion and how many of them just try to find reasons to dislike Democrats -- much like Republicans do.
Given how long this comment is with discussing just one of your points, I hope you'll understand if I don't go through every single point you've raised. Instead I'll ask you something, in general -- how much time did you think was necessary to undo the damage caused by the Trump years, and not only return to the status quo of 2016, but improve on it? I know you didn't expect everything to be fixed on Day 1 of the Biden presidency. When did you think we'd at least return to the 2016 status quo? In my line of work, changes that we make to the process take time to show up. You don't see the consequences of some of them for years. You could make all those changes on Day 1, and it could still take 10 years for you to see results. That's just how it works -- I'm not going to see the impact of lower temperature on piping stresses until its at the end of its life.
I can't fault Biden nor Democrats because given the resources at their disposal, I don't think there's much more that they could've done. Things are still shitty, but it's because change takes time. If I go on a diet I'm not going to hit my goal weight the next day. It's going to take months to become noticeable. The same goes for fixing poverty and wages and what have you.
Change does not take time, that's bullshit liberals tell themselves to avoid acknowledging their party can't govern. It allows the party leaders to shirk responsibility for their inaction as they take small, unnoticeable, miniscule steps to the right.
People have been fighting against poverty and wages for decades, in the words of James Baldwin 'how much time do you want for your progress?'
There have been multiple times since RvW was ruled where Dems have had super majorities in Congress when they could have passed it. But like Obama said it was no longer a legislative priority, he said this while they had the majority to pass it.
Lieberman was their convenient rotating villain for the time they needed him. They always have one when it comes to passing legislation benefitting the public. It's always someone that's safe from being voted out, or soon retiring.
Also you're making shit up.
Just spitting facts
This take is among the dumbest I've ever seen and I wish there was an Award I could give you for that.
Can't dispute the facts. Duopoly zombies ignore the bad and only acknowledge what they perceive to be the good
I think Cornel West not paying his child support is one of very few things I dislike about Cornel West as a person.
One of the others, of course, being that he's running as a spoiler candidate.
What is a spoiler candidate?
A third party candidate. The US has 2 real political parties. Democrats see voting for a Green party candidate as spoiling the chances for the Democratic candidate because only left leaning people would vote Green and this effectively splits the vote.
Ah yeah, makes sense. In this stupid system I tend to agree even though it's frustrating
only left leaning people would vote Green
there is a corollary here i don't want to spell out
What is your point? Corollary between left leaning voters and the Green party? Duh!? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
i'm saying most other parties do not lean left, including the democrats. if democrats are worried about splitting a vote with greens, they could vote for the green candidate.
Well when compared to socialist/communist ideology it's definitely more right but the Democratic party is the only realistic hope leftist people have in the United States.
i have no hope in the democrats. i voted for hope in 2008.
No. He’s a useful idiot.
Depends - are you measuring by weight or volume for his capacity of shit?
As bad as that debt is, it would be worse if it just up and mysteriously disappeared one day.
I hope folks are watching it like hawks.
I like Doctor West as a person, he's a fascinating guy, and a great speaker, but nobody in that much debt should be anywhere near elected office.
I work in the finance/baking sector. I literally couldn't get a job like this. Every bank or financial institutions HR departments would disqualify you on a background check.
he's not applying for your job
Ya, but the entire reason I wouldn't be able to get a job is they view you as too vulnurable to manipulation and bribery. Sounds like things you want to avoid in a president or any political office holder...
I trust cornel west mare than any politician I've seen this cycle
For president? I guess it's geriatric number 1 who isn't getting anything I want done. Geriatric sideshow clown who will grift as much as he can while letting his party fuck us, or possibly one of his disciples. Being better than a huge steaming load of dog poo isn't really much to brag about. Thus is the state of American politics.
I can't tell which side is which in your description
why?
If the debt up and mysteriously disappeared it would mean persons unknown paid it.
but you think you know who it is.
If the debt mysteriously vanished? No way to know unless you subpoened the banks or something.
so what was the point of the comment?
The point is any political candidate with massive debt needs to have their finances watched carefully just in case that debt disappears.
Then there needs to be an investigation into who, exactly, just bought that candidate.
"In 2016, Kavanaugh reported in a financial disclosure owing between $60,004 and $200,000 in credit card and loan debt. But, as reported by Mother Jones, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court that debt had gone."
Who paid it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
but the biden/obama/clinton/pelosi/schiff family wealth needs no investigation?
it's not just debts. it's any money.
maybe i'm naive, but i don't believe you could buy cornel west. i would doubt mysef if he wins the green nomination, drops out, and backs biden. i don't know anything else that might shake my faith is his character.
I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation.
meh. i don't think it's worth the energy of even saying "there ought to be an investigation" of any of them, myself. i'm saying that you're looking at the wrong person to start hunting out corruption.
It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office.
i think we should start with anyone in public office, pretty much endlessly. let's root out corruption where it has actually taken place, not where it MIGHT.
I think Cornell West made great contributions to philosophy. As someone with pragmatist leanings I enjoyed his works. I don't want him in a congressional or executive government role.
A philosopher president sounds cool. Imagine Slavonic Zizek as president.
No please no I can't imagine what a state of the union address would be like with the constant sniffles.
Do you only support those with degrees in political science in government?
No. It's just that I dont want Cornell West.
So why do you not want him?
It's really a spoiled vote to vote third party. People can whine about how it's unfair, but it still won't change anything. Do you really think spoiling your vote will show it to the big guys? Well guess what? Now they're no longer in power and the other side is rejoicing in their own victory. Meanwhile there are those who understand that they won't get everything that they want, but at least they won't have a side that will try to take away their rights by nominating and then confirming a right-wing justice to serve for life on the Supreme Court.
It's a fundamental problem with a first-past-the-post voting system. Third parties act as spoilers. That's why I'm a proponent of ranked choice. It's not a panacea. It doesn't fix everything, but it removes the spoiler effect. Then people can vote their conscience with their first choice.
It's not a coincidence that the leadership of both parties hate it. They can't run a traditional campaign with wedge issues. Good. I'm tired of a divided country. The party leadership can suffer through appealing to a broad part of the electorate.
If you're in most states your vote will not matter due to electoral votes being all or nothing. Voting third party expresses your dissatisfaction with the major parties and helps to legitimize the third party in the eyes of others so it can have a chance in the future. And yes, everyone will always say this is the most vital election ever.
If I'm going to have a crook in office, I'd rather they be a crook that awakens people to the issues that matter such as medicare for all and ending the drug war. The bar is just that low
Couple of points: I like Cornel West. I used to listen to him regularly on the Tavis Smiley Show, and while I disagree with his religion, I generally approve of his politics.
The amount he owes is concerning, because it makes him vulnerable to undue influence, in the same way that Trump was. I don't really care that he owes back taxes, the child support is a problem IMO. People should take care of their kids, period. He's got the money to do it.
That said, I don't want him running as a Green; I want him running as a Democrat. Greens are largely fringe candidates, and the votes they win are votes that would likely otherwise go to Democratic candidates. Unfortunately, in our current system, that makes it probable that, unless there's a similarly popular Libertarian candidate taking votes from the Republican candidate, that the Republican is more likely to win. I am not a fan of Democrats; I find that they are unwilling to go nearly far enough on most things, and I strongly oppose their stance on 2A rights. But I oppose Republican far, far more. Given that I have a practical choice between Dems and Republicans at a national level, I'll vote Dem 95% of the time (I think I've voted Republican once or twice, but I honestly don't remember who, or under what circumstances). If Greens can demonstrate, through local and state level wins, that they have the power to win national elections, then I'll be happy to vote Green. And I do vote Green at a local level. But so far, they just aren't winning locally or at state levels in sufficient numbers to indicate that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a national election, much less a presidential election. West shoudl step aside once he's made a strong showing and convinced Biden to adopt some of his platform.
the votes they win are votes that would likely otherwise go to Democratic candidates
From the article, "The GOP has a long history of using the Green Party as a tool to siphon votes that might go to Democrats and of playing a spoiler role in our two-party, winner-take-all electoral system. And the Green Party leadership has opportunistically embraced the support, playing the role of what some describe as 'useful idiots.' [...] In 2016, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein garnered 30,000 votes in Wisconsin; Trump won the state by 23,000 votes."
There's an entirely other way of reading that data, which is to say that Hillary could have picked up 30,000 more votes in Wisconsin if she had been a better candidate and run a better campaign.
I was asked for a source, I provided one.
this does not prove that i would have voted for hilary clinton in 2016. because i wouldn't have.
I didn't either--I voted Green--but the state I lived in at the time went solidly for Clinton. I didn't like her then, I don't like her now, but if I'd lived in a state where it would have been even remotely close, I would have voted for her rather than Trump.
I disagree with Clinton's politics. I disagree with Trump's existence.
I didn’t either–I voted Green–but the state I lived in at the time went solidly for Clinton.
i voted for jill stein, too, and my state went to trump. i didn't want him to win. i also didn't want clinton to win. that's why i didn't vote for either of them.
jill stein wasn't a spoiler: she was the candidate i wanted to win.
Guess that helps explain how he ended up on the Republican payroll.
That just makes him smart. /s
Yeah imagine if he said something that juvenile.
Did he fuck a female slave of his and lie about the paternity of their love-child ?
Because prolly only like two or three POTUS on dollar bills did that.
Amd that debt is going to magically disappear the day after the election. Just you watch.
Some Republican will gladly buy him off with that debt. The whole Green Party is a Republican front to steal votes
It worked 6 years ago and there are clearly enough suckers out there that it could work again next year.
All they have to do is create enough apathy, mistrust and hate toward the DNC to convince a small slice of people into voting for them. Siphon off a few votes to the Greens. Siphon off a few more votes to JFK Jr. Siphon off a few more votes to those who will simply stay home on elections day.
who do you think they steal votes from?
But in terms of 3rd parties that draw from a major party the libertarians draw more votes from Republicans than greens from dems
He's just the latest version of Jill Stein that the right is rolling out to take votes away from the Dem ticket. Same ole story.
Well this time the Right has both the Greens and JFK Jr to take votes away. It's infuriating that it is so obvious and yet people will still fall for it.
Honestly RFK Jr aint nearly as much of a spoiler as West, after all West isnt talking to Jordan "Steak and benzos" Peterson.
They're both spoilers in their own way. Fuck both those clowns. If either of them had a redeeming value before, they definitely don't now.
spoiler candidacy is a fiction
if they're taking votes that they didn't earn you should contact the fec
That's all they can come up? So he's still exponentially cleaner than your current set of warmongering, insider trading, union busting politicians. Your upvote shows you're just a right winger.
I have a man-crush on Michael Parenti, so, not a right winger.
Exactly my thought. They obviously published the worst thing they found about him. And being in debt is bad how? That just proves he is not a corrupt, insider trading, oligarchy favouring candidate. And what proportion of that "half a million" is missed child support payments? It could just be $10 child support + 499,990 debt = A headline that makes him look like he owes 500,000 in child support!
Exactly my thought. They obviously published the worst thing they found about him. And being in debt is bad how? That just proves he is not a corrupt, insider trading, oligarchy favouring candidate. And what proportion of that "half a million" is missed child support payments? It could just be $10 child support + 499,990 debt = A headline that makes him look like he owes 500,000 in child support!
Shitty click bait making him sound like a dead beat dad.
It's almost entirely unpaid taxes
While it's true the lion's share is unpaid taxes, he owes $50k in child support. I'd still call that a deadbeat dad.
It's difficult to know without more details. Consider how much non w-2 income is required to owe that much in tax. 50k could be from a couple missed monthly payments
It would take an income of hundreds of thousands of dollars PER MONTH to have child support that high. And regardless of how quickly they accumulated, that debt was generated in 2003. That's TWO DECADES of not paying a pretty significant childcare debt. There's no way to brush that aside as no big deal.
Ok. Missed that part. Unless he paid it with out notifying the court (but then why not say so now) he's likely owes more because of fees and whatever they tack on.
My point was mainly how being a tax cheat is considered a big brain move by a non-insignificant number of voters.
Being a dead beat dad isn't that big of a turn off for a subset of those.
Hell I didn't even know he was running. This is free campaign press. I can only see it helping his poll numbers.
Honestly for unpaid child support it depends on the situation.
How is that better???
A good chunk of the country thinks be a tax cheat is smart.
I don't agree. It's free loading. But as evidence from other comments here, it makes him a hero to those who are anti-tax.
who gives a fuck? this is meaningless mudslinging to anyone who supports him.
I was wondering when Democrats were going to get around to their smear campaigns against progressives. Looks like they're starting early this campaign season
You mean smearing the spoiler candidates the GOP put up to split the ticket juat about every election the past 20+ years? That's who you're worried about the left smearing?
You mean smearing the spoiler candidates the GOP put up to split the ticket juat about every election the past 20+ years?
There are smear campaigns against RFK Jr?
Is the libertarian candidate a spoiler put up by democrats every year?
The GOP? You don't know much about politics in this country.
Still better than the bloods and crips.
Here are some additional articles from past couple weeks plus:
The 2 party system is horseshit, but this is your recurring reminder that the greens are not worth your vote.
Any party serious about affecting change does so at the local level first. The fact that the greens consistently try to get attention with symbolic candidacies at the national level while being fuck all out of touch with school boards and local politics paints them as diva opportunists at best and bad faith progressive spoilers at worst.
This is coming from someone who agrees with most of West's platform at face value
You know who was involved with the Green Party back in the early 2000s? Kyrsten Sinema.
I mean, you don't even need to go that far back. 2016 green presidential candidate Jill Stein literally rubbed elbows with Putin and Mike Flynn in 2015
she went there to confront Putin.
lol
this isn't a rebuttal. it's an appeal to ridicule.
Oh I understood the tone and it made me laugh. Sorry you got downvoted tho
Lemmy's great because downvotes don't matter
How'd that go?
poorly: she didn't have a translator
So she's grossly inept? She didn't consider how she would actually talk to him? I don't want someone like that in higher office.
he can speak English. he just refuses to do it in public
Then she’s even more of an idiot. You don’t enter a tyrants court to confront them unless you want to be the latest occupent of the gibbet
I think she's brave.
Bravery and follishness are often the same.
and a lesser evil still actually evil
Running for president as a 3rd party is like proposing marriage to random strangers instead of, y’know, dating people. We all know you’re doing it for attention because it’s not going to work.
except when it has worked...
Even Teddy Roosevelt didn't get it to work.
Which is... never. At least for presidential elections. I can't speak for the marriage proposals.
The Republican party didn't appear out of nowhere in 1860 to win a presidential race. They were formed in 1854 and supplanted the Whig party entirely before the 1860 election. It was a majority party throughout the north before it won a presidential race — it wasn't a "third party."
Likewise, Democrats replaced the Democratic-Republican party in much the same way that republicans replaced the Whig party, and had been a major party from its very beginnings. Literally in their first election there were only two parties running!
There are only three other parties that have won the presidency: Federalists (there from the inception of the party system), Democratic-Republicans (ditto), and Whigs (major party years before first electoral win). There's been no "third party" that has ever won the US presidency. All three have the same story as democrats as starting off in an election with just two parties.
I'm a green party supporter (not in the US) and couldn't agree more. I support the greens as much as I can to help spread environmental awareness, but if the election looks like it will be close, I vote for the party most likely to defeat the conservatives.
what if all the parties except greens are conservative?
They aren't. And it's disingenuous to assert otherwise.
They're neo-libs which is better because the conservatives are fascists.
But they're both evil. Just a matter of degree. Hence us voting for the lesser of the two.
Exactly, I don't enjoy voting that way but do so out of necessity.
Neoliberals aren't evil - we're just correct.
The type of response I would expect from the GOP tbh
That's because your life is informed more from social media than real life.
We're the normal people.
voting for evil is bad
edit: people downviting me prefer to vote for evil
It's not great but we have to be pragmatic unfortunately.
And it's pretty shitty honestly that what the neo-libs have going for them is at least we're not fascists.
Need a strong third party and ranked choice voting.
What we actually have going for us is the largest period of sustained peace and prosperity in all of human history.
Sustained peace? You're joking right?
Also, prosperity for who?
You know most life on this planet is going to have a very hard time the next ten years.
Neo-libs pretend to be the left to get the working class to forget classism. But they're at best centrists who are more concerned about keeping the 'peace' (Obama drone strikes I'm looking at you) so the corporate power brokers can continue to 'prosper'.
But, at least you're not a fascist.
Prosperity for literally everyone. Graph go up mean world more gooder.
So I just realized you replied to my comment twice.
Considering this post and your other ones it's obvious you don't have anything real to say.
Take care.
I 100% mean the above.
name one that isn't
Do you know the first thing about the Democratic platform? It's not perfect - and they're not perfect - but I have a trans kid, and they're the ones who want him to have rights and be treated like a human being. They're also the ones who want to raise taxes on the rich to fund social services. They're also the ones who accept the demonstrable reality of climate change. They're also the ones who resist efforts to put religion into schools and government.
Are they as left as I wish they were? Nope. But they're not conservative, either, at least not most of them.
I guarantee they will not accomplish anything: they want to hold it over you to score votes in perpetuity. they will also continue to take corporate dollars and water down legislation that does pass so it greases the palms of their donors.
Your guarantee is worthless and idiotic. The fact that they're not perfect doesn't mean they aren't 10,000% better in every way than Republicans. Enough of this bullshit "both sides" narrative. I'll stick to the side that isn't trying to take my son's rights away.
the didn't codify roe v Wade. they passed tarp and the patriot act. they fund police and prisons and war. they passed Obama are as a gift to insurance industries. they didn't jail bp executives for deepwater horizon and even paid oil companies for Correxit.
democrats are not your friend: they are the "good cop".
That's all true, but none of that means anything to a trans person who wants to not get their rights taken away, though.
democrat promises mean just as much
The original single-payer Obamacare failed by one vote so if there were more Democrats elected we would have single-payer health care.
Your weird fantasy doesn't align with reality and this is true at all levels
calling my fact-based position a "weird fantasy" is jus innuendo, not a refutation
[x]
the greens are the ones you want, then.
The party the right pays for? No thanks. Pass.
I have bad news about the democrats
With the way you’ve won everybody over I’m sure they can’t wait to hear your news
Democrats?
wrong
Thankfully I don't live in that horrible world.
you might be surprised
Then you've gone too far to the left and lost perspective on the center.
there is a cure for political illiteracy
Says the communist lmao
this is an appeal to ridicule.
Communism is laughable on its own merits
this is the same: a fallacious appeal to ridicule.
Lolz
yet another appeal to ridicule
Eh, the reform party nearly got it. It can be easier to get local elections after achieving national legitimacy.
They made no inroads after Hilary vs Trump. They aren't going to see any better opportunity for national legitimacy, and it wasn't enough to make a significant difference. If they want to succeed, they have to start local.
The Reform party had national legitimacy in the 90s, but not much because they didn't win the presidential elections. Then they dissolved.
They need to play the long game. Even if by some miracle they won the presidency, they would have no senators or house representatives. Democrats and Republicans would likely not cooperate. It would be ironic. Greens aren't willing to form a coalition with Democrats despite having so many commonalities, but they'd need to convince Democrats to do so with them if they didn't want to instantly be a lame duck president.
What you do is veto and pass executive orders to show your dissatisfaction with current congress and hope this gets you enough publicity to win seats in midterms.
When has that ever worked? Republicans cannot be shamed into doing the right thing. We have seen this consistently time and time again. You could probably make some inroads with Democrats though.
Nonetheless, that shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be taking the presidency, the Senate, and the House. At the very least, if you're capable of winning the presidency, your party should be able to take a good number of seats in Congress if you have people running. Maximizing that number will make the presidency more successful, and that will require people running for those positions in every state, and most importantly, the support of the third party in cultivating those candidates.
What? I never said shaming into doing the right thing, I said advocating an ideology and hoping others follow it
Again, you might get some Democrats, but you aren't going to get any Republicans. I edited my comment after you posted this I believe, but the general idea of what I'm saying is that you need as many seats in Congress as possible to have a smooth and successful presidency. The goal should not be compromise with Democrats from the outset. It should be having the presidency, House, and Senate.
That requires the party to seriously invest in other races.
Republican voters have jumped to the Libertarian party before, same with Reform party. Generally all the bigger third parties have actually spawned from previously Republican voters.
Tell that to the Tea Party, the last significant change in voting dynamics we've had as a nation, that won almost entirely at the local level and got fucking destroyed on the national stage.
The Tea Party is what eventually led to the populist surge that backed Trump.
The Tea party movement (which was within the Republican party) was born out of the Reform party and their national fame.
The Tea Party was born from us electing a black guy who wanted to pass universal health care.
Partially about ACA but also about the forever wars.
Lol no.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2011/11/17/section-4-views-of-iraq/
Thanks for sharing!
I like to come with receipts.
You edited 💀
I had just replied to "Lol no."
Lemmy isn't as great about server uptime as I'd like. I frequently have to edit links back in to make things show up
:(
IMO still better to vote 3rd party than to waste your vote with the blues and reds.
We need to start showing them that we are not shee, just keep voting for them with no changes; Reagan/BushSr/Clinton/BushJr/Obama/Trump/Biden all they did was for the wealthy class not for the working class, do not get me wrong they do throw in crumbs here and there...
Trump admin: passes $1.5 trillion tax cut where 60% of savings go to the top 20% and slashes the corporate tax rate by 40%
Biden admin: passes $1 trillion infrastructure bill, $400 billion in climate funding, $1.9 trillion in COVID aid that temporarily boosted unemployment aid and child tax credit, and first major gun safety legislation in decades, seen here
Demand change. Demand more from the politicians that work for you. Take Biden and all elected officials to account for expiring temporary relief for the lower class. But on many important issues for the lower class there are big differences between red and blue.
Thank you. I get so frustrated with people who say the two parties are the same. They are not, and all you have to do is compare the policy achievements of the Trump and Biden administrations. There are real consequences to choosing Dem over GOP.
That's cute, the working class has zero impact on policy
Then how come the Biden administration has been the most progressive in decades when it comes to policy and signing bills?
Because he hasnt, being told hes progressive doesnt make it truth.
No, but passing the most comprehensive green energy bill in history certainly does.
Which means nothing when he's expanded the budget of the worlds largest polluter to almost $1t. And issuing oil leases faster than Obama did, which includes areas in protected wet lands and most of the Gulf of Mexico. The liberal SCOTUS ruled with the conservative ones to kill the Clean Water Act
Joe Bidens approval rate is like 39%
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/20/joe-biden-approval-rating-hits-record-low-poll-finds/?sh=6bdb0f0e6bfd
Most people are not impressed, he's too old and out of touch with the people
That poll isn't even from this year.
You don't get it, we don't care for the crumbs.
They don't matter to us, only to you who still vote team blue no matter what.
The real problems will only be addressed when we all band together against the wealthy class, so we need to stop playing their games.
Sure, while you're building your revolution, don't betray your country to the actual freakin' fascists. The Republicans are not the party of big business anymore — that's the Democrats, who have done great things for the capitalist economy. Today's Republicans are the party of hate groups, Nazi street gangs, child abusers, rapists, thieves, and traitors.
I agree with you to an extent, but I also sympathize with the person above. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said this, but if each president after WW2 were brought before the Nuremberg Court, they'd be hanged for war crimes. I think when he said this he stopped at HW Bush, but Id be willing to bet it's true up to now.
This doesn't mean all sides are the same. I'm still going to vote Democrat in a general election, for the most part. But at the end of the day, they still push a globalist free-market ideology, they still promote war, and they still condone the surveillance of the American people, the imprisonment of dissidents and political threats, and the destruction of the environment in the name of profit.
Fascism is already here. It's the corporations (the rich) who hold power, and both neoliberals and conservatives work to uphold that dynamic so they themselves can maintain power.
I agree with you to an extent, but I also sympathize with the person above. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said this, but if each president after WW2 were brought before the Nuremberg Court, they'd be hanged for war crimes. I think when he said this he stopped at HW Bush, but Id be willing to bet it's true up to now.
This doesn't mean all sides are the same. I'm still going to vote Democrat in a general election, for the most part. But at the end of the day, they still push a globalist free-market ideology, they still promote war, and they still condone the surveillance of the American people, the imprisonment of dissidents and political threats, and the destruction of the environment in the name of profit.
Fascism is already here. It's the corporations (the rich) who hold power, and both neoliberals and conservatives work to uphold that dynamic so they themselves can maintain power.
Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics because it's the only thing he's good at.
People to the left of Biden sitting the election out/voting 3rd party will have one practical outcome: helping to elect Trump, who is about to go on trial for trying to overthrow the government.
I would love to live in an America where Biden is the rightmost option instead of the leftmost. That’s not where we are, and if we want to get there we can’t let fascists near the levers of power.
the only people who help elect trump are people who vote for trump
You might not “care for the crumbs,” but with your attitude, that’s all you’re destined to get.
Crumbs are for peasants.
You'll get less than 10% of the vote.
They are happy with their chains, they gotten so used to them they take comfort in their presence.
They settle for crumbs when they have the power to take the whole damn loaf
We need ranked choice voting first. Funny how it's something both Democrats and Republicans can unite over why it's bad, confusing, whatever...
Eh I think it’s more complicated than that. Neither national party is calling for it definitely. And DC Dems are suing to block it in the city. But if you look at where RCV is implemented it’s basically very Democratic cities and independent-streak states like Maine and Alaska. Both of which do have a lot of pressure from viable independent/dem-soc alternatives. It’s also completely banned in Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. So I would tip the scales slightly towards Democrats here, but I agree it primarily challenges those in power so if you’ve been elected under the current system you’re usually not crazy about it regardless of party. (To be clear I totally support RCV or really anything other that FPtP voting)
Some democrats don't like RCV (see the DC thread from the other day), but many do. NYC has RCV, and I assure you it didn't get there without democrats supporting it. So does Maine.
RCV wouldn't work well for presidential elections as they are anyway, because it's a two-stage election. What would RCV mean in an individual state? Pretend a 3rd party is in contention in that state but has no chance nationally. Candidates A and B are the major parties, and C is our third party. If the results are C=40, A=35, B=25, and B's support transfers to C, and C's support would transfer to C, does that mean B should be eliminated so C can win the state, or should C be eliminated (because they won't win any other states) and B should win the state? There's no obvious answer and it just invites more of a clusterfuck.
RCV is great for popular vote elections, which is what everything else is (mostly... there's... I think it's Mississippi governor?) and what the presidential election should be.
Popular vote first, RCV second.
B got the least votes in the first round, so B is dropped. I don't see what the problem, here, is
The problem is that it depends on how you assess it. There are two, both perfectly valid, ways to look at this.
The way you're looking at it is you see it as a state-only contest. B got the fewest votes, B's votes go to C, C wins the state. The end. From an administrative level this is the simplest approach. I don't feel any need to expand on this assessment as you're in favor of it and seem to grok the principles behind it.
The other, equally correct, way to look at it is to assess this as a national contest. In that case, C is the one that actually gets the fewest votes because they have 0 electoral votes in any other state. C is incapable of winning, so C would be eliminated in the first round of the state level contest. After all, one of the points of RCV is to eliminate the impact of spoiler candidates that cannot win. With that in mind, it'd be dumb to design an RCV system that increases the impact of a spoiler candidate that cannot win.
The issue with the first interpretation is the risk of magnifying the impact of a spoiler candidate who cannot win. The issue with the second interpretation is the sheer administrative difficulty (if C were competitive in multiple states then each state needs to take into account how other states are doing their RCV process, etc.). Both flaws would be unlikely to matter >99% of the time, but that one time the flaw would matter could lead to a constitutional crisis or less dangerously result in fundamental dislike of RCV systems. That one time might also become more likely if voters feel more comfortable voting for third parties due to this system.
The problem here is that both systems are fair, logical, and valid; they also each present major issues in edge scenarios. That's why it's important to go for a popular vote first. That way the election is one election, which RCV is explicitly designed for. The current two layer 51-elections that lead to another election that we have for the US presidency is basically a nightmare scenario for an effective RCV system.
It IS a state-by-state contest. The electoral votes each state decides to give are decided completely at a state level, and it should be at a state level. Each state has different priorities, different laws, different populations, and are all differently affected by the result of the presidential election, so just because they voted for C doesn't mean each individual state wouldn't have a preference for A over B given a different choice at a state level.
As an example, Kansas may put C as first choice and B as second choice due to their state-specific priorities. Florida may put C as first choice and A as a second choice for whatever their reason may be.
If B gets thrown out in the end, then each state needs to resolve their votes differently to reflect their differences in priorities. It's the most fair.
It is and it isn't, the reasons are in my comment.
The presidential election is decided entirely by electoral votes, and once those are cast then that's that. You cannot just change it to ranked choice unless you change the constitution itself
However, states are free to decide how they want to allot their electoral votes. Considering it is a state-by-state contest by nature, only that interpretation is even feasible. Technically you could do it if every state decided on the same system of RCV, but I highly doubt you could get every state to effectively make it a popular vote decision, considering most states already don't like that idea.
You do not understand what I am saying.
This is not a first we need to do this... first we need to do that....
We need to stop voting for the bloods and crips.
Looking at the long term, this will help us win the war on the wealthy class.
I’ve noticed an increase in “bOtH sIdEs!11!!!” bullshit on Lemmy lately, along with your usual cadre of dumbfucks who will be manipulated into tacitly supporting the republican traitor filth. And I’m betting it’ll steadily tick upward.
You think Cornell West is a Republican?
He's a spolier candidate that is openly backed by interest groups on the right. He isn't personally a Republican, or ideologically conservative, but he sure has some strange friendships.
Spoiler candidate when not voting for one of thr two preferred oligarchs is kind of a degrading term. Perot didn't spoil the Bush campaign- and the Libertarian party, that gets more votes than the Green, draws mostly from "would-be Republicans"
Lol yes he did. While votes for him came from both parties, the damage came from him pounding Bush on "No New Taxes," which did cost Bush substantial numbers of voters - voters who often switched to supporting Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_1992_presidential_campaign#:~:text=On%20Election%20Day%2C%20Perot%20finished,18.91%25%20of%20the%20popular%20vote.
did you even read your own link??
And yet what everyone remembers is "No New Taxes" which is why an incumbent should never be in a debate
to be clear, you proved yourself wrong and are still insisting you were right by shifting the goalposts.
Not remotely, as my quote clearly indicates
anyone can read the context of this thread and see you are lying now
The Bush campaign put forward a worse candidate and lost. It was a more competitive and better election cycle.
Bush was an incumbent President lol
So was Carter, and Ford, and Trump
Well, in all fairness, literally no one voted for Ford.
You're talking like I'm not actually a fan of Biden. I am. The problem with West is his ticket is literally being paid for by the right. So yes, in this case, he is very much a spoiler candidate.
No I'm criticizing calling people who vote for the candidate they support a "spoiler"
the irony of you choosing "ender wiggin" as a moniker. i just hope you wake up before you pull the trigger on a genocide.
Shhhh, you have to buy into the if you don't vote the way I vote your the problem narrative both sides live off of.
Splitting the vote is liberal myth, we wouldn't vote for your shitty candidates if they were the only ones running
And this is why everyone thinks you’re all idiots.
Never gave a fuck what the echo chambers thought, they sacrifice their conviction for 'winning'
Or in other words, they compromise to form coalitions with people who mostly agree, so that have a better chance of winning and seeing most of their goals achieved.
Versus refusing to compromise, and not supporting a candidate unless they pass your purity tests and you call in love with them.
Which strikes you as the more mature, adult option?
This is what progressives don't seem to understand, which is why they never get anything done and will never win.
Yeah :/. It bothers me because the lack of coalition building and antagonism turns away natural allies -- I thought I was a neo liberal shill until I glanced at a progressive platform and realized I supported everything on there, at least in concept if not implementation.
I think today's progressive wing is a lot better and more pragmatic, although that earns the ire of purists who think that compromise is a dirty word. I've generally found those purists however to be an incredibly loud minority, and far more focused on tribalism than policy.
If 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck is 'goals achieved' then hes doing good. If 750k living on the streets is 'goals achieved' hes doing good. If 3 people having more wealth than the entire combined populations of the top 11 states is 'goals achieved' then hes doing good. If 62% of bankruptcies are due to lack of affordable healthcare is 'goals achieved' then hes going good. If 42m people, more that the entire population of California, need SNAP to barely survive is 'goals achieved' then hes doing good.
So far he's kept Trumps tax cuts for the rich in place. = Goals achieved. He's kept Trump's immigrations policies in place. = Goals achieved. He adopted Trump's 'stop COVID testing and the numbers will go down' approach to COVID = Goals achieved. The party lack of following through with promises of making RvW law resulted in its repeal. = Goals achieved. Drilling in protected areas that liberals were outraged when Trump proposed them = Goals achieved. Leasing off most of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling despite further damaging the climate = Goals achieved.
His achievements are off the fucking charts.
This is a perfect point to discuss. At no point in the last several decades have Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate that were pro choice, nor 50 votes to remove the filibuster. One of those are needed to enshrine abortion rights in law. The closest Democrats came was in 2008 with Obama, where they had 60 Senate votes for only a couple months because of contested races for Franken and Ted Kennedy's death. They used that window to pass Obamacare, which was the most progressive bill for healthcare possible at the time. There would've been a single payer option, except they needed Lieberman's vote to pass it, and he refused single payer. At this point in time there were a lot more Manchin types in the party too. They all lost their seats in 2010 when the Tea Party dominated and Democrat voters stayed home. You've been around long enough that you should know all of this.
2016 was a critical election for abortion rights because of the supreme court, but many professed abortion supporters didn't seem to understand that, nor that Roe being overturned is a direct consequence of that. Many people recognized the risk and warned them, but they said "don't threaten me with the supreme court!". I sincerely question how many of them actually care about abortion and how many of them just try to find reasons to dislike Democrats -- much like Republicans do.
Given how long this comment is with discussing just one of your points, I hope you'll understand if I don't go through every single point you've raised. Instead I'll ask you something, in general -- how much time did you think was necessary to undo the damage caused by the Trump years, and not only return to the status quo of 2016, but improve on it? I know you didn't expect everything to be fixed on Day 1 of the Biden presidency. When did you think we'd at least return to the 2016 status quo? In my line of work, changes that we make to the process take time to show up. You don't see the consequences of some of them for years. You could make all those changes on Day 1, and it could still take 10 years for you to see results. That's just how it works -- I'm not going to see the impact of lower temperature on piping stresses until its at the end of its life.
I can't fault Biden nor Democrats because given the resources at their disposal, I don't think there's much more that they could've done. Things are still shitty, but it's because change takes time. If I go on a diet I'm not going to hit my goal weight the next day. It's going to take months to become noticeable. The same goes for fixing poverty and wages and what have you.
Change does not take time, that's bullshit liberals tell themselves to avoid acknowledging their party can't govern. It allows the party leaders to shirk responsibility for their inaction as they take small, unnoticeable, miniscule steps to the right.
People have been fighting against poverty and wages for decades, in the words of James Baldwin 'how much time do you want for your progress?'
There have been multiple times since RvW was ruled where Dems have had super majorities in Congress when they could have passed it. But like Obama said it was no longer a legislative priority, he said this while they had the majority to pass it.
Lieberman was their convenient rotating villain for the time they needed him. They always have one when it comes to passing legislation benefitting the public. It's always someone that's safe from being voted out, or soon retiring.
Also you're making shit up.
Just spitting facts
This take is among the dumbest I've ever seen and I wish there was an Award I could give you for that.
Can't dispute the facts. Duopoly zombies ignore the bad and only acknowledge what they perceive to be the good
You. I like you. We need more you.
Really? Then how the fuck did the last 46 presidents get office?
Because duopoly voters are idiots.
I think Cornel West not paying his child support is one of very few things I dislike about Cornel West as a person.
One of the others, of course, being that he's running as a spoiler candidate.
What is a spoiler candidate?
A third party candidate. The US has 2 real political parties. Democrats see voting for a Green party candidate as spoiling the chances for the Democratic candidate because only left leaning people would vote Green and this effectively splits the vote.
Ah yeah, makes sense. In this stupid system I tend to agree even though it's frustrating
there is a corollary here i don't want to spell out
What is your point? Corollary between left leaning voters and the Green party? Duh!? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
i'm saying most other parties do not lean left, including the democrats. if democrats are worried about splitting a vote with greens, they could vote for the green candidate.
Well when compared to socialist/communist ideology it's definitely more right but the Democratic party is the only realistic hope leftist people have in the United States.
i have no hope in the democrats. i voted for hope in 2008.
No. He’s a useful idiot.
Depends - are you measuring by weight or volume for his capacity of shit?
As bad as that debt is, it would be worse if it just up and mysteriously disappeared one day.
I hope folks are watching it like hawks.
I like Doctor West as a person, he's a fascinating guy, and a great speaker, but nobody in that much debt should be anywhere near elected office.
I work in the finance/baking sector. I literally couldn't get a job like this. Every bank or financial institutions HR departments would disqualify you on a background check.
he's not applying for your job
Ya, but the entire reason I wouldn't be able to get a job is they view you as too vulnurable to manipulation and bribery. Sounds like things you want to avoid in a president or any political office holder...
I trust cornel west mare than any politician I've seen this cycle
For president? I guess it's geriatric number 1 who isn't getting anything I want done. Geriatric sideshow clown who will grift as much as he can while letting his party fuck us, or possibly one of his disciples. Being better than a huge steaming load of dog poo isn't really much to brag about. Thus is the state of American politics.
I can't tell which side is which in your description
why?
If the debt up and mysteriously disappeared it would mean persons unknown paid it.
but you think you know who it is.
If the debt mysteriously vanished? No way to know unless you subpoened the banks or something.
so what was the point of the comment?
The point is any political candidate with massive debt needs to have their finances watched carefully just in case that debt disappears.
Then there needs to be an investigation into who, exactly, just bought that candidate.
See:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-supreme-court-judge-brett-kavanaughs-100k-debt-disappear-1785043
"In 2016, Kavanaugh reported in a financial disclosure owing between $60,004 and $200,000 in credit card and loan debt. But, as reported by Mother Jones, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court that debt had gone."
Who paid it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
but the biden/obama/clinton/pelosi/schiff family wealth needs no investigation?
it's not just debts. it's any money.
maybe i'm naive, but i don't believe you could buy cornel west. i would doubt mysef if he wins the green nomination, drops out, and backs biden. i don't know anything else that might shake my faith is his character.
I never said family wealth needs no investigation, I said massive debt which is mysteriously paid off needs investigation.
meh. i don't think it's worth the energy of even saying "there ought to be an investigation" of any of them, myself. i'm saying that you're looking at the wrong person to start hunting out corruption.
It's not about Doctor West, it's about ANYONE in massive debt seeking public office.
i think we should start with anyone in public office, pretty much endlessly. let's root out corruption where it has actually taken place, not where it MIGHT.
I think Cornell West made great contributions to philosophy. As someone with pragmatist leanings I enjoyed his works. I don't want him in a congressional or executive government role.
A philosopher president sounds cool. Imagine Slavonic Zizek as president.
No please no I can't imagine what a state of the union address would be like with the constant sniffles.
Do you only support those with degrees in political science in government?
No. It's just that I dont want Cornell West.
So why do you not want him?
It's really a spoiled vote to vote third party. People can whine about how it's unfair, but it still won't change anything. Do you really think spoiling your vote will show it to the big guys? Well guess what? Now they're no longer in power and the other side is rejoicing in their own victory. Meanwhile there are those who understand that they won't get everything that they want, but at least they won't have a side that will try to take away their rights by nominating and then confirming a right-wing justice to serve for life on the Supreme Court.
It's a fundamental problem with a first-past-the-post voting system. Third parties act as spoilers. That's why I'm a proponent of ranked choice. It's not a panacea. It doesn't fix everything, but it removes the spoiler effect. Then people can vote their conscience with their first choice.
It's not a coincidence that the leadership of both parties hate it. They can't run a traditional campaign with wedge issues. Good. I'm tired of a divided country. The party leadership can suffer through appealing to a broad part of the electorate.
If you're in most states your vote will not matter due to electoral votes being all or nothing. Voting third party expresses your dissatisfaction with the major parties and helps to legitimize the third party in the eyes of others so it can have a chance in the future. And yes, everyone will always say this is the most vital election ever.
If I'm going to have a crook in office, I'd rather they be a crook that awakens people to the issues that matter such as medicare for all and ending the drug war. The bar is just that low
Couple of points: I like Cornel West. I used to listen to him regularly on the Tavis Smiley Show, and while I disagree with his religion, I generally approve of his politics.
The amount he owes is concerning, because it makes him vulnerable to undue influence, in the same way that Trump was. I don't really care that he owes back taxes, the child support is a problem IMO. People should take care of their kids, period. He's got the money to do it.
That said, I don't want him running as a Green; I want him running as a Democrat. Greens are largely fringe candidates, and the votes they win are votes that would likely otherwise go to Democratic candidates. Unfortunately, in our current system, that makes it probable that, unless there's a similarly popular Libertarian candidate taking votes from the Republican candidate, that the Republican is more likely to win. I am not a fan of Democrats; I find that they are unwilling to go nearly far enough on most things, and I strongly oppose their stance on 2A rights. But I oppose Republican far, far more. Given that I have a practical choice between Dems and Republicans at a national level, I'll vote Dem 95% of the time (I think I've voted Republican once or twice, but I honestly don't remember who, or under what circumstances). If Greens can demonstrate, through local and state level wins, that they have the power to win national elections, then I'll be happy to vote Green. And I do vote Green at a local level. But so far, they just aren't winning locally or at state levels in sufficient numbers to indicate that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a national election, much less a presidential election. West shoudl step aside once he's made a strong showing and convinced Biden to adopt some of his platform.
citation needed.
Here's a source for you. Note that People's World is a socialist new organization.
From the article, "The GOP has a long history of using the Green Party as a tool to siphon votes that might go to Democrats and of playing a spoiler role in our two-party, winner-take-all electoral system. And the Green Party leadership has opportunistically embraced the support, playing the role of what some describe as 'useful idiots.' [...] In 2016, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein garnered 30,000 votes in Wisconsin; Trump won the state by 23,000 votes."
There's an entirely other way of reading that data, which is to say that Hillary could have picked up 30,000 more votes in Wisconsin if she had been a better candidate and run a better campaign.
I was asked for a source, I provided one.
this does not prove that i would have voted for hilary clinton in 2016. because i wouldn't have.
I didn't either--I voted Green--but the state I lived in at the time went solidly for Clinton. I didn't like her then, I don't like her now, but if I'd lived in a state where it would have been even remotely close, I would have voted for her rather than Trump.
I disagree with Clinton's politics. I disagree with Trump's existence.
i voted for jill stein, too, and my state went to trump. i didn't want him to win. i also didn't want clinton to win. that's why i didn't vote for either of them.
jill stein wasn't a spoiler: she was the candidate i wanted to win.
i disagree with both their politics.
Guess that helps explain how he ended up on the Republican payroll.
That just makes him smart. /s
Yeah imagine if he said something that juvenile.
Did he fuck a female slave of his and lie about the paternity of their love-child ?
Because prolly only like two or three POTUS on dollar bills did that.
Amd that debt is going to magically disappear the day after the election. Just you watch.
Some Republican will gladly buy him off with that debt. The whole Green Party is a Republican front to steal votes
It worked 6 years ago and there are clearly enough suckers out there that it could work again next year.
All they have to do is create enough apathy, mistrust and hate toward the DNC to convince a small slice of people into voting for them. Siphon off a few votes to the Greens. Siphon off a few more votes to JFK Jr. Siphon off a few more votes to those who will simply stay home on elections day.
who do you think they steal votes from?
But in terms of 3rd parties that draw from a major party the libertarians draw more votes from Republicans than greens from dems
He's just the latest version of Jill Stein that the right is rolling out to take votes away from the Dem ticket. Same ole story.
Well this time the Right has both the Greens and JFK Jr to take votes away. It's infuriating that it is so obvious and yet people will still fall for it.
Honestly RFK Jr aint nearly as much of a spoiler as West, after all West isnt talking to Jordan "Steak and benzos" Peterson.
They're both spoilers in their own way. Fuck both those clowns. If either of them had a redeeming value before, they definitely don't now.
spoiler candidacy is a fiction
if they're taking votes that they didn't earn you should contact the fec
That's all they can come up? So he's still exponentially cleaner than your current set of warmongering, insider trading, union busting politicians. Your upvote shows you're just a right winger.
I have a man-crush on Michael Parenti, so, not a right winger.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/KUkwpVXaytc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Exactly my thought. They obviously published the worst thing they found about him. And being in debt is bad how? That just proves he is not a corrupt, insider trading, oligarchy favouring candidate. And what proportion of that "half a million" is missed child support payments? It could just be $10 child support + 499,990 debt = A headline that makes him look like he owes 500,000 in child support!
Exactly my thought. They obviously published the worst thing they found about him. And being in debt is bad how? That just proves he is not a corrupt, insider trading, oligarchy favouring candidate. And what proportion of that "half a million" is missed child support payments? It could just be $10 child support + 499,990 debt = A headline that makes him look like he owes 500,000 in child support!
Shitty click bait making him sound like a dead beat dad.
It's almost entirely unpaid taxes
While it's true the lion's share is unpaid taxes, he owes $50k in child support. I'd still call that a deadbeat dad.
It's difficult to know without more details. Consider how much non w-2 income is required to owe that much in tax. 50k could be from a couple missed monthly payments
It would take an income of hundreds of thousands of dollars PER MONTH to have child support that high. And regardless of how quickly they accumulated, that debt was generated in 2003. That's TWO DECADES of not paying a pretty significant childcare debt. There's no way to brush that aside as no big deal.
Ok. Missed that part. Unless he paid it with out notifying the court (but then why not say so now) he's likely owes more because of fees and whatever they tack on.
My point was mainly how being a tax cheat is considered a big brain move by a non-insignificant number of voters.
Being a dead beat dad isn't that big of a turn off for a subset of those.
Hell I didn't even know he was running. This is free campaign press. I can only see it helping his poll numbers.
Honestly for unpaid child support it depends on the situation.
How is that better???
A good chunk of the country thinks be a tax cheat is smart.
I don't agree. It's free loading. But as evidence from other comments here, it makes him a hero to those who are anti-tax.
who gives a fuck? this is meaningless mudslinging to anyone who supports him.
I was wondering when Democrats were going to get around to their smear campaigns against progressives. Looks like they're starting early this campaign season
You mean smearing the spoiler candidates the GOP put up to split the ticket juat about every election the past 20+ years? That's who you're worried about the left smearing?
There are smear campaigns against RFK Jr?
Is the libertarian candidate a spoiler put up by democrats every year?
The GOP? You don't know much about politics in this country.
Still better than the bloods and crips.
Here are some additional articles from past couple weeks plus:
July 12, 2023: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/21/politics/cornel-west-green-party-president-biden-democrats-worry/index.html August 3, 2023: https://newrepublic.com/post/174819/cornel-west-owes-irs-500000-taxes August 7, 2023: https://www.thedailybeast.com/cornel-west-calls-500k-tax-lien-a-distraction August 10, 2023: https://www.thecollegefix.com/socialist-scholar-cornel-west-owes-500000-in-taxes/ August 15, 2023: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/cornel-wests-tax-hypocrisy
Dr. Cornel West speaks about it on the interview below:
Interview with Third Party Candidate Dr. Cornel West | The Stephen A. Smith Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtHIzALSrAY
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=WtHIzALSrAY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.